Mughal Emperors Family Tree

Buy the poster: usefulcharts.com/products/asian-royal-family-trees

I am waiting for the Chola Empire tree. I am such a fan of them and even after learning about them, it is fascinating to see people talk about them.

some strange death causes we don't usually see in royal/imperial family trees: Canon explosion accident and falling down the stairs at a library.

I studied Persian in college and set myself the challenge of translating the Homayunnāmeh (book of Homayun) by the Mughal princess Golbadan Begom. I didn't get very far, but I did find my very favourite description of a death ever: "He-Who-Dwells-in-Paradise sauntered from the land of the decaying to the land of the eternal" (فردوس مكاني از دار الفنا بدار البقا خراميدند) (lit. Paradise-dwelling from land-of-annihilation to land-of-eternity sauntered)

Hey, could you please make a video about Georgian monarchs??

Idea: House of Savoy family tree From the Duchy of Savoy to Kingdom of Italy

I would like to see a chart of the Emperors of the Ming Dynasty

The politics in this video were unnecessary. Al Muqaddimah was very sensitive when talking about Mughals and he did not need to bring in his Muslim apologetics here. (This underscores how much of a dissonance and conflicf there is between identities of "Muslim" and "Indian". Hindutvas and Sanghis are stupid but that doesn't mean that Indian Muslims are often forced into a struggle for a dual loyalty). I also found it weird for him to minimize the martyrdom of one of the Sikh Gurus. "It was for political reasons, not religious ones." All religious conflicts begin as political ones. It is as absurd and disrespectful to Sikhs as saying the martyrdom of Husayn and Ali by the Sunni Caliph Muawiya were not religious, they were "just political" (with the implication being that they were not religiously persecuted?). That the Jizya tax was not enforced as much as it was in the rest of the Islamic world can be attributed to the greater numerical strength of Hindus in India than Christians in much of the Middle East. For the record I am a Christian so I have no personal belief towards Sikhism but that specific comment was very strange and is reminisicent of when white American racists say you need to look at the positives of the Confederacy. If Al Muqaddimah was concerned about bias against Muslims this video has only made Muslims appear more sensitive to the average person when talking about history and points to a broader problem when academically talking about the history of Islam.

I had a feeling al-Muqadimmah would be voicing this episode, and I am pleased to see him here. Love his channel!

Interesting how all concerns regarding the narrator's obvious biases, mistakes in the video and ignorant, disrespectful apologetics were just kinda ignored.

Very well made video. Although I have some criticisms. 1. There is a new trend started by historians like Eaton and Audrey Truschke to whitewash Aurangzeb nowadays, brushing away his bigotry as political rather than religious. Anyone criticizing him as a bogot is instantly labelled as "Hindutvavadi". While it's true that much of what he did was political, it is also true that he did oppress the "infidels" in his empire. There are records indicating that he had destroyed over 1000 temples. Many of his enemies were muslim rulers. But none of the records mention a mosque being destroyed for "political" reasons. Nothing explains why he was busy renaming forts in Maharashtra with islamic names while his coffers were being emptied fighting a loosing war against Marathas. One correction. He was not intollerent against the minorities. Because Hindus were not minorities. He was limited in his power as he had to co-operate with the majority Hindus to maintain his empire. If he had a free hand, he would have gone all out against the "infidels". In fact thats what he did whenever he got a chance. Unlike his great grandfather Akbar, he prefered religion over smart politics and that's the exact reason why Mughal empire started to crumble under his rule. 2. His contemporaries did criticize him for putting Jizya on Hindus. There is a famous letter from Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in 1679 (I think that's the year) where he criticized Aurangzeb for levying Jizya and discriminating against Hindus. 3. "He was able to get a great amount of success against Marathas" - where is this information coming from? Marathas clearly defeated the Mughals in the war. In fact they deliberaly avoided killing Aurangzeb as him being alive meant that money keeps flowing in from Delhi while they don't have to deal with instability in the north. 4. There is a lot of fuss made about GDP of India under Aurangzeb. But Europe had already left India behind in terms of GDP per capita by that time. Also 70% of the wealth was concentrated in the hands of some 500 royal families. While Aurangzeb can't entirely be blamed for this state of economy, he can't also be credited for riding on the trends built by his predecessors. In fact Aurangzeb was responsible for destroying the economy and manpower of Mughal empire by fighting pointless wars in Deccan that killed millions of people. His taxation wasn't very good as well. In one of his Fatwas, he has ordered his officials that if pesants can't pay the taxes, they should sell the families of those peasants as slaves and collect the money to fill the coffers. I am not a judge on entire Mughal empire. So I limited my comments to Aurangzeb only. Hope that my points are taken at their value instead of labelling me a "bhakt" or a "Sanghi" or a "Hindutvavaadi".

As a fan of al-Muqaddimah, I was excited when I heard his familiar voice

Great video! Very interesting

Humayun wasn't exactly a bad person. He's just not... an Emperor-material (for the lack of better word). As far as I know he was more passionate about knowledge, literature, art, poetry, philosophy and stuff like that. And Bairam Khan was VERY loyal to Humayun...

We need mauryan Dynasty chart video also🔥

I didn't think a family tree would be a great way to tell me about this history, but you present it in a way that's only using the useful chart as a jumping-off point so I learned a lot. Thank you. I'd love to see a video done the same way about the other two gunpowder empires.

I don’t like how biased the narration is.

Please do a video of the Kapoor family! its a family of actors that have gone up to 5 generations!

Babur regarded himself a Timur-i Turk. In dynastic terms, Babur referred to himself either as a Turk, or a Timurid, and like other patrilineal descendants of Temür, he inherited the title mirza – an Arabic-Persian contraction of the phrase amir zadeh, son of an amir, a prince or noble. His Chaghatai Mongol male kins were known as khans, after their patrilineal descent from Chinggis Khan. Babur never thought of himself as a Mongol, but his dual descent justifies calling his Indian conquests the Timurid-Mughal Empire. Being a patrilineal descendant of Timur, Babur considered himself a Timurid and Chagatai Turkic. There is confusion about Babur's ethnicity. Being a descendant of Timur, he considered himself as a Timurid of Turk. For example, the Indian Moghal Empire was established by Turks. But many scholars still hold the erin swf belief that the Moghals were of Mongol origin. The truth is that the language of the Moghals was Turkic, and that the founders of this empire were proud of being Turk. A Chaghatai Turk, he claimed descent from both of the great Central Asian conquerors, Timur and, more remotely, Chingiz Khan. It was this connection with the great Mongol invader that gave the dynasty the misleading appellation of "Mughal" or "Mongol." This is especially ironic, since Babur himself had an intense dislike for the Mongols. While it is too late to change the long-accepted nomenclature, it is worth remembering that the Mughal dynasty was Turkish in origin, and the cultural tradition which Babur imported into India was the one which had flourished on the banks of the Oxus.

The accident-to-assassination ratio is rather suspicious.